[newuser2k9]

D+S is hillarious! Their work has become so terrible, (was it ever good?) I just cannot fathom how somebody who devotes their life to architecture can produce such crap.

I mean... Four Seasons and Corus Quay we're terrible, but they should have been brilliant. and what is that lump they're building at Varsity Stadium? Now this?

However, I also think the original design for this site is awful as well. I bet everyone on this board can design something nicer.

Four Seasons is an all together good building. But it is the exception, not thr rule. I wouldn't even have a tiff about this, minus the huge slabs up the north sides. I mean, it doesn't respect any of the design of the building below (balconys poorly matched to window styles, etc). But those slabs are awful, to the nth degree. What do they accomplish? It's like facing a giant wall to the city centre, and it ain't even pretty.

 

[Ramako]

I'm a big fan of neo-modernism. I love almost all of the work of KPMB and aA, but I can barely find anything redeemable in the recent designs of D+S. I really hope they stop getting work in Toronto.

 

[junctionist]

The Russell Hill turned out nicely, but it is on a smaller scale.

 

[adma]

What happened to the first renders in post #1? I'll re-post some of it.

By Graziani + Corazza Architects:

Re US's D+S-praising statement

The unadorned verticality of the tower is an especially generous feature considering the overwrought nature of the commercial dreck surrounding Square, which it so successfully plays off of.

may I assume that this is overadorned verticality that compounds rather than plays off of the overwrought nature of said commercial dreck.

Ultimately, the subtle message is that the star of the show on this side of the square shouldn't be any overweening G+C-style new tower: it should be HNR, or the Hermant/Imperial Optical Building as an old-schooler like me still likes to see it. (Roy Orbison used to get his glasses here.)

 

[Tewder]

Part of the charm of this mess of an intersection was to be in the very crass and clashing visual clutter of commercialism. Wasn't Times Square often cited as the principle? The gorgeous paving and open space of the square itself was to be the grounding and calming element. Do we really need demur and tasteful minimalism here then?

The dogmatism of D&S design aesthetic works well at times obviously but also gets them into trouble when they stridently apply it regardless of context, Corus being the most egregious example of where they go wrong. I picture Dundas Square as a bit of a circus of sight and sound, and from this its redemption. The issue arises then when punches are pulled in an effort to rise above that which should be down and dirty.

 

[interchange42]

Tewder, I will happily sing that tune with you in unison: with the caveat that I do not like G+C's specific plan here, it is more in line with what should rise at this corner. Some firm better with the wow-factor than G+C* should have their hands on the reins here, either that or drop some hallucinogens into Jack's morning coffee.

42

*would someone please ring the Dutch? Or bring Alsop back into practice: can you imagine what something Alsop had planned would look like here? I can dream...

 

[hkric88]

I just cannot fathom how somebody who devotes their life to architecture can produce such crap.

That is a very interesting question, one I ask myself all of the time; and as a student of architecture I can tell you, architects are usually full of shit. They don't know what they are doing, but they like to tell everyone how creative they are. Its just the truth, though I still cannot understand it.

 

[adma]

Part of the charm of this mess of an intersection was to be in the very crass and clashing visual clutter of commercialism. Wasn't Times Square often cited as the principle? The gorgeous paving and open space of the square itself was to be the grounding and calming element. Do we really need demur and tasteful minimalism here then?

The dogmatism of D&S design aesthetic works well at times obviously but also gets them into trouble when they stridently apply it regardless of context, Corus being the most egregious example of where they go wrong. I picture Dundas Square as a bit of a circus of sight and sound, and from this its redemption. The issue arises then when punches are pulled in an effort to rise above that which should be down and dirty.

But what about freaking HNR?!? You're speaking of the D+S design as if it's fronting on the square--it isn't. HNR is. And it's a building with more raw urban soul IMO than anything else on the square--even if it has less of that "crass and clashing visual clutter of commercialism" than anything else on the square.

Think of D+S as a backdrop to that, as opposed to the square proper.

 

[Tewder]

I agree completely about HNR. You miss my point as a rebuttal to your suggestion that the 'backdrop' to HNR should be minimalist or deferential to it. I just don't see that as a worry here given the whole visual 'cacophony' approach we all agree should be the point... and whether 21 Dundas actually borders the square or looms over it makes little difference to what should be considered its context.

 

[alklay]

But what about freaking HNR?!? You're speaking of the D+S design as if it's fronting on the square--it isn't. HNR is. And it's a building with more raw urban soul IMO than anything else on the square--even if it has less of that "crass and clashing visual clutter of commercialism" than anything else on the square.

Think of D+S as a backdrop to that, as opposed to the square proper.

The D+S building faces the square. To say its just a backdrop, ignores this important point.

 

[Urban Shocker]

How politely it defers to the heritage buildings at 19 and 21 Dundas Square that have busier frontages - while still being a lovely big friggin' tower in its own right.

Ultimately, the subtle message is that the star of the show on this side of the square shouldn't be any overweening G+C-style new tower: it should be HNR, or the Hermant/Imperial Optical Building as an old-schooler like me still likes to see it.

But Tewder advocates for an expansion of "the very crass and clashing visual clutter of commercialism", demands that the building be "down and dirty" to match the Square, and sees the D+S design as:

The dogmatism of D&S design aesthetic works well at times obviously but also gets them into trouble when they stridently apply it regardless of context

That the D+S design defers to the heritage buildings that face onto the Square and stands as a counterpoint to the commercialism of the Square itself strikes me as neither dogmatic nor strident - merely contextual and smart, which D+S always are.

 

[alklay]

Talk about artspeak B.S.

Why is there a need or want for a 'counterpoint' to the commercialism of the square? What purpose would it serve? And why is such 'contextual and smart'?

When something fits in its 'contextual'. When something does not fit it, its 'contextual'. I am sure there is no end to these intellectual contortions.

The art community can certainly throw around words to rationalize anything, without either logic or sense. But maybe I am just being 'contextual and smart'.

 

[ProjectEnd]

But Tewder advocates for an expansion of "the very crass and clashing visual clutter of commercialism", demands that the building be "down and dirty" to match the Square, and sees the D+S design as:

That the D+S design defers to the heritage buildings that face onto the Square and stands as a counterpoint to the commercialism of the Square itself strikes me as neither dogmatic nor strident - merely contextual and smart, which D+S always are.

Counterpoint indeed. I'll refer you to the brilliant image Metro Man conjured up about a year ago...

 

[Tewder]

US, the B&S-designed square is counterpoint enough which was supposed to be the whole point after all.

Even if polite deference to HNR were the issue here, and I'm not so sure it is, there are far more effective and visually interesting ways to achieve this than what D&S have on offer. Even a different colour and cladding would have gone a lot further in acknowledging HNR. Imagine a black facade instead? The choices in the rendering if accurate are unfortunate.

 

[alklay]

And the building would be a better 'counterpoint' if instead of blank walls of precast, it would be full of balconies or windows (or any other cladding except blank walls of precast in the same colour as HNR).